Pairs with Spares--3-somes and more

[Sr_Sally]

Article from the Washington Post this morning about the “enlightened” couples who are actually 3 or more people.

Polyamory isn’t about sex, polys tell you. It is about love. It is about loving your primary partner enough to love that they have a new secondary partner, even when their New Relationship Energy with that person leaves you, briefly, out in the cold. It’s about loving yourself enough to acknowledge that your needs cannot be met by one loving person. It’s about loving love enough to embrace it in unexpected form – like maybe in the form of your primary’s new secondary! – in which case you may all form a triad and live happily together.

Because, you know, the more the merrier. And raising kids takes more than 2 people. Ugh!

The article also mentions how positively they view the gay marriage issue, so apparently marriage among 3 or more people really isn’t that much of a far-fetched idea! Double ugh!!

 

[Teelynn]

This is one of my practicle objections to gay marriage. (I am against gay marriage because it is terribly disordered and wrong, against the law of God, of course) But if you think about it, if the law starts allowing gays to marry, what’s to stop people from wanting to marry 2 or more people? Or what’s to stop someone from wanting to marry a close relative? In other words, the concept will snowball just as these things have in the past. Talk about a society being in total chaos! God has a reason for order, and it would be nice if some people could actually understand that!

 

[StratusRose]

Has anyone read the comments on that article? It’s reeks of moral relativism. These people have no idea what true love is.

 

[lizaanne]

Ok - now that makes me ill. What a bunch of garbage.

~Liza

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

I took a marriage/families class at a liberal college a couple years ago and the instructor had some people come in to give a presentation about this “polyamory” junk. It really made me sick.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[rstegeman]

It seems more and more that society is turning into the modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. Isn’t this typical in a civilization’s waning days? Look at the Roman Empire.

 

[StratusRose]

It seems more and more that society is turning into the modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. Isn’t this typical in a civilization’s waning days? Look at the Roman Empire.

Yes. Exactly. Empires didn’t collapse from without, they collapsed within. Romans embraced infanticide, contraception and homosexuality (to name a few) shortly thereafter the empire collapsed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Here’s what will stop it – spouses are exempt from the death tax. People whose estates might be subject to that unconstitutional tax will begin marrying their children and grandchildren, as a way to pass on their property without the tax man taking a cut.

Congress doesn’t care about (in fact, supports) perversion and immorality, but they won’t like losing revenue!

 

[mschrank]

Pervertism has been around since the beginning of time. Yawn.

 

[manualman]

If there were internet forums 20 years ago, this is the exact status that the idea of “gay marriage” had then: a radical and to most people, comical idea that sexually perverted behavior could ever become socially acceptable. And yet, here we are.

Fast forward 20 years from now and ‘polyamorous’ groups will likely be shown positively on sitcoms, it will be considered a ‘hate crime’ to speak against it publicly, there will be clubs on college campuses promoting acceptance…

Unless, of course, the barbarians take us down before then! (whoever THEY might be in the modern era)

 

[Sr_Sally]

I’ve been thinking about this and it seems like one issue is that people don’t understand how to be firends or neighbors any more. One of the comments in the article was about spouses not having all likes and dislikes in common. So the solution, of course, is to get another ‘partner’. But what if they understood that you could have a very close friendship without sex? If your spouse doesn’t like slasher films, call a friend and go with him/her, but don’t think that means either that you and your spouse an ‘incompatible’ and need to get a divorce, or that you have to have sex with your movie buddy. If you are stressed about chasing your toddler around, ask your neighbor to watch the child for an hour while you pay bills or take a nap (or whatever) and then return the favor another day. But don’t assume that means you and the neighbor now need to ‘spouse-swap’ or raise your kids communally. I think someone in the article even mentioned how families used to have aunts, cousins, etc to help out. But no one expected that the maiden auntie or young cousin was now going to be part of a threesome! Oh ugh! This whole thing has me so sick to my stomach!

 

[johnnykins]

No doubt this language could’ve come straight out of NAMBLA. Maybe pets will follow. Then maybe plants, rocks, plastics… Why the mind veritably boggles at the love that could be shared.

 

[BioCatholic]

Congress doesn’t care about (in fact, supports) perversion and immorality, but they won’t like losing revenue!

It’s not Congress’ job to care about “perversion and immorality” when it comes to non-related consenting adults. There are already polyamorous relationships among Mormons where the FIRST wife is married through a civil ceremony, and the subsequent wives are “married” in purely religious ceremonies. Under Lawrence vs Texas, these are completely legal. This also occurs elsewhere too.

It is not the business of the Government who lives with who. They can set limits on how many people can share marriage licenses, which are purely civil documents, but other than that if a man chooses to cohabitate with more than one woman, it is not anyone else’s business.

Virtually no adultery, fornication, or cohabitation law can be enforced. It would be a waste of resources and time if they could. It really isn’t the business of Government to worry about who is cohabitating, if they are deciding not to have children, or whether sexually active adults are married.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It’s not Congress’ job to care about “perversion and immorality” when it comes to non-related consenting adults.

Ah, but Congress cares about it’s own perversions and immoralty.

There are already polyamorous relationships among Mormons where the FIRST wife is married through a civil ceremony, and the subsequent wives are “married” in purely religious ceremonies. Under Lawrence vs Texas, these are completely legal. This also occurs elsewhere too.

The Federal Edmunds-Tucker act was designed to destroy the LDS church if it continued the practice of polygamy. Specific provisions included:

• Disincorperated the LDS church and stole it’s assets
• Stole the money from the Perpetual Immigration Fund
• Required civil marriage licenses
• Prohibited women from voting
• Required voters, jurors, and public officials to deny polygamy
• Replaced local judges with federally appointed judges
• Took away local control in school textbook choice

It is not the business of the Government who lives with who. They can set limits on how many people can share marriage licenses, which are purely civil documents, but other than that if a man chooses to cohabitate with more than one woman, it is not anyone else’s business.

Yet the government has and does prosecute polygamists.

Virtually no adultery, fornication, or cohabitation law can be enforced. It would be a waste of resources and time if they could. It really isn’t the business of Government to worry about who is cohabitating, if they are deciding not to have children, or whether sexually active adults are married.

Despite that, the government has fairly successfully stamped out polygamy with the following acts:

1862 the Anti-Bigamy Act
1874 Poland Act
1882 Edmunds Act
1887 Edmunds-Tucker Act

And just recently some bigamists were successfully prosecuted in court. And the basis of the prosecutions were interesting – some of the wives were too young, and the charge was Statutory Rape. Yet, Statutory Rape doesn’t apply to married women! Girls as young as 13 can get married in some states, and their husbands aren’t prosecuted.

 

[BioCatholic]

And just recently some bigamists were successfully prosecuted in court. And the basis of the prosecutions were interesting – some of the wives were too young, and the charge was Statutory Rape. Yet, Statutory Rape doesn’t apply to married women! Girls as young as 13 can get married in some states, and their husbands aren’t prosecuted.

These other “wives” were married in purely non-civil religious ceremonies that carried no weight of law, and did not grant the husband/wife spousal privilege. Only the first marriage license was considered valid in the eyes of the Law.If these other women were over 18, then the charges would not have held up.

A NC state judge struck down the NC cohabitation law under Lawrence. Any other state or Federal court subservient to the USSC would likely do the same, provided all parties are over 17 (18+).

Bigamy cases usually are only brought when a party of a multiple relationship seeks to obtain marital benefits when they are not a legitimate civil spouse, or there are minors involved.

If a bigamy case were brought against 3 29 yr olds living together, their cohabitation would be covered under Lawrence, unless they tried to obtain civil benefits.

 

[vern_humphrey]

These other “wives” were married in purely non-civil religious ceremonies that carried no weight of law, and did not grant the husband/wife spousal privilege. Only the first marriage license was considered valid in the eyes of the Law.If these other women were over 18, then the charges would not have held up.

Bingo!!

The marriages would have been legal, but for the government’s fiction that they were not.

A NC state judge struck down the NC cohabitation law under Lawrence. Any other state or Federal court subservient to the USSC would likely do the same, provided all parties are over 17 (18+).

Bingo!

Bigamy cases usually are only brought when a party of a multiple relationship seeks to obtain marital benefits when they are not a legitimate civil spouse, or there are minors involved.

Riiight – like Jim Crow laws were enforced only when Blacks got “uppity.”

If a bigamy case were brought against 3 29 yr olds living together, their cohabitation would be covered under Lawrence, unless they tried to obtain civil benefits.

And they would be discriminated against on those grounds/

 

[BioCatholic]

Are we agreeing then? I always knew that Warren Jeffs messed up by pairing underage girls with older men.

Had he “married” 18 year old girls to these men, there wouldn’t have been any recourse for the government to take.

To steer clear of prosecution:

1. Subsequent marriages HAVE to be purely religious
2. No subsequent wife can claim ANY marital benefits
3. Subsequent wives MUST file taxes as single
4. ALL parties must be 18 or over, even though the first wife can be as young as 14. The government could employ child endangerment or abuse charges at subsequent wives who are over 18 for sexual behavior with a minor in the house. To be 100% safe, ALL parties would have to be 18+

If all those were met, the government would have one heck of a time pursuing charges because all subsequent wives would just be living there, not claiming any legal benefits.

There was a Missouri city ordinance that outlawed more than 4 non-related people from living together, and the city sought to evict a cohabitating couple with 3 children. Ultimately, the city dropped the case because they knew their law would be shredded in Federal court under Lawrence vs Texas. They chose to keep the law on the books for “cosmetic appeal”, and let it not be enforced. No city council member wanted their name on the Federal court case that struck down cohabitation laws.

The same hold true in FL. There are non-written rules regarding 18+ cohabitating adults. No moderate/liberal prosecutor cares about them, and no conservative prosecutor wants their name forever enshrined on the case that eliminates cohabitation laws.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Which is to say the law successfully discriminates against polygamists – since a monogamist would be immune to prosecution if he married an underage girl and that girl would be entitled to benefits and married status.

 

[SILVERNAME]

Adultery, polygamy, fornication and cohabitaiotn should be criminalized and subject to criminal prosecution with jail time.

All it takes is some political will.

It is the govt’s job to restrain evil and punish the wicked, that of course includes fornicators, adulterers, homophiles, etc etc etc.

That has always been the job of govt. Not to act like robin hood, and certainly not to make money.

 

[rstegeman]

Adultery, polygamy, fornication and cohabitaiotn should be criminalized and subject to criminal prosecution with jail time.

All it takes is some political will.

It is the govt’s job to restrain evil and punish the wicked, that of course includes fornicators, adulterers, homophiles, etc etc etc.

That has always been the job of govt. Not to act like robin hood, and certainly not to make money.

However, in a country like the United States which “supports” freedom of religion, you cannot legalize moral codes like this which are religiously based. Especially when there are certain “faiths” out there that don’t necessarily subscribe to the belief that all of the situations you mention are morally wrong.

Personally, I’m not sure if I agree with criminalizing those matters. Making them criminal offenses does nothing to educate the people as to why the offense is wrong in the first place. It only teaches that there is punishment associated with the offense. We must first truly understand our moral code before we can truly embrace it. Is it better for one to avoid sin out of fear of punishment (earthly punishment) or to avoid sin out of love and respect for God? I think it is the second one, although I don’t know if that’s an official Church teaching.